Why devs dont communite with "US" part 300

Well, there are some news. They nerfed him after.

1 Like

I think they really should separately balance that game differently from this one’

Also thank god they nerfed Genji, i hate seeing that Ninja every match

As a developer you shouldn’t take things literally, you gather all the feedback and find the common idea behind that feedback. You might have a dozen people saying that Ana should wallclimb but you can interpret that as “we want Ana to be able to position easier”.

You also might have vague criticisms like healing is OP and barriers suck, it’s generally their job to boil down those issues to get to the essence of the complaint.

4 Likes

There will always be the edges of good suggestions, always. That doesn’t invalidate that there are good suggestions from the community that are never tested or even tried out.

And then we have the dismal MM system, which have been a joke since the game was released, and been constantly brought to the attention of the developers, yet they haven’t done anything. The reason they probably haven’t done anything about it, is because it doesn’t affect the pro players at all, and hence isn’t prioritised.

1 Like

That’s a terrible desition that will lead to many confused players.

This “meta” isn’t here because shields are that great. Double barrier is here because of the power creep within the game and instead of admitting that the damage across the board is too high - the devs doubled down and said that they want to increase the damage even more.

They’re not trying to make the game actually be balanced but to target the META - that’s not balancing because you are isolating an issue in a particular environment and not focusing on the bigger picture.

2 Likes

Name me a comp game that don’t have a community complaing about MM and I will call you a liar because it doesn’t exist.

3 Likes

I mean their is also the restriction of time, theirs a limited amount of things they can test and develop.

That what is a good decision is a lot of the time rather subjective overall, not to mention it usually lacks the foresight the devs have in regards to new content and other changes their testing.

Also what are you referring to in regards to MM, is it the MMR system? if so how is it a broken in your opinion.

But even that feedback was still misguided at least in terms of Ana.

As all Ana needed was the 300 heal buff to Nano, something that is both a natural extension to her kit, and an effective way to diversify the use of nano as just a Genji Blade enhancer.

(not to mention cheaper to implement)

Be it that I’m pretty sure that Baptiste was in some way inspired by this complaint.

What I’m saying is that not all feedback is necessarily right or absolute. Even if you boil it down to the general complaint at hand.

Genji buffs were definitely for the OWL - weeks before they even came on EXP, some OWL teams were ALREADY playing genji in their matches

Sure, but this is not new in 2020. Let me elaborate:

You are always going to have many kinds of feedback and that includes overexaggerations, people that will take your words and try to twist them or people that are just angry that they have not been listened to and will not take any more lack of communication or fail balance patches and “try to roll with it and see how it goes”.

The game didnt have a 100% positive feedback in 2016 either but they should also be aware that if the communication and the results of not communicating with the playerbase (yes, outside GM and T500) are worse … its not 100% on the players, they HAVE to take responsibility too.

They added Replays 3 years too late and STILL refuse to work on scoreboards or in anything related player education/training and encouraging versatility while punishing one tricking. It seems to me they are really fast on turning on a blind eye on their mistakes and enhancing “ours” as a community … and then again, the game is on a comatose state due to OW2 development and it seems its not going up.

TLDR: They failed the community and they know it. You cant blame the community for their lack of communication, success in balancing, adding content to the game to keep it alive or … trying to prevent it from going down / dying. Thats on them.

Again - telling it like it is :man_shrugging:

6 Likes

Owl players were most likely experimenting with the other little buffs Genji had, especially considering that Genji is a bit of a Pro/high tier favorite.

1 Like

I asked about a vape cloud buff a long time ago. Shame I cant pull it up anymore because it may have been on the old forums. We get a vape cloud experiment, even though it didn’t make it.

I asked about Roadhog constantly. They probably got tired of it and finally buffed him. May not make it past experimental either.

I asked about Pharah speed buffs. We got those in experimental, too.

I’m more than OK that they don’t put some of these things in the game. It shows, to me, that they are definitely listening to feedback. No matter who it is.

Some people should keep in mind that feedback goes hand in hand with criticism. You can criticize something and give unsolicited advice on what you think is a better alternative, but that doesnt mean they always have to listen – or that it even needs to be in the game, just because I, or anyone else, thinks it should be.

1 Like

He didn’t have any changes prior to those buffs. Just some teams decided to keep bringing Genji out constantly even when it cost them the round.

He got a buff to his ammo count =) before OWl

1 Like

Someone with common sense in this thread lmao

1 Like

Which patch was this? Also, I doubt teams would throw their games just for an ammo buff, when others have received ammo changes it didn’t really entice or push away players from those heroes.

Not say it’s BECAUSE of this but we’re hero pools in effect?

Like I said genji is a pro/high tier favorite, Especially considering that a lot of these players have had dive worked into their bones of the two years of the meta’s existence.

2 Likes

What are you saying? Please reword, I’m having difficulties understanding